2025--who is vaccinating

why?

• CDC just published its 2025 vaccine schedules. We have now gone from 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025. In 1986, before vaccine makers had broad immunity to liability for injuries, CDC's schedule had 7 routine childhood injections and none for adults or pregnant women. CDC's 2025 schedule has 5 routine injections during pregnancy, over 70 routine childhood injections (birth to age 18), and over 130 routine adult injections (up to age 79). Counting non-routine injections, there are even more. CDC: 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025
  X ^
  

  Posted on 12/29/2024, 8:44:28 AM by TigerClaws

  CDC just published its 2025 vaccine schedules. We have now gone from 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025.

  In 1986, before vaccine makers had broad immunity to liability for injuries, CDC's schedule had 7 routine childhood injections and none for adults or pregnant women.

  CDC's 2025 schedule has 5 routine injections during pregnancy, over 70 routine childhood injections (birth to age 18), and over 130 routine adult injections (up to age 79). Counting non-routine injections, there are even more.

  1983 schedule: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/images/schedule1983s.jpg

  1986 law: https://congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/223/

  2025 childhood schedule: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf

  2025 adult schedule: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf

  2025 pregnancy schedule: https://cdc.gov/vaccines-pregnancy/hcp/vaccination-guidelines/index.html

The “noble lie” is the height of social pragmatism. These sorts of lies can be useful in a healthy society. They might be justified if the truth is easily misinterpreted due to complexity. If a public prejudice would lead their thought in the wrong direction, then the “noble lie” is necessary. These are necessary in a very limited sense because rationality is a rare commodity. Most people don't think as individuals and are easily led astray.

However, this is not what he means. Each social function has its own story to tell. “Social modes” are conventional lies because any social policy must oversimplify to function. Everyone lies, everyone tells a story about themselves to justify their current predicament. No one is innocent of that. Everyone has their “myth,” about how they got where they are. It's not a lie so much as an oversimplification of the very complex truth.

He says, “An innocent lie can be a condition for the possibility of community. So, for example, a person is polite with another person whom he hates at heart.” In other words, this kind of lying is necessary for social life. For a man to spout whatever he thinks at the moment would create a disaster for every social occasion. This is not so much a lie as a mode of selfcontrol and restraint.

Again, Berdyaev is not talking about this either in the long quote above from The Destiny of Man. He's talking about lying at a more deeper, fundamental level. Lying as a way of life is the creation of modern life. The modern collectivist drive is designed to destroy the conscience. Berdyaev is saying, however, that lying is the very lifeblood of organized existence because its the lifeblood of organized anything:

Personality is a subject, and not an object among other objects, and it has its roots in the inward scheme of existence, that is in the spiritual world, the world of freedom. Society on the other hand is an object. From the existential point of view society is a part of personality, it is its social side, just as the cosmos is a part of personality, its cosmic side. Personality is not an object among other objects and not a thing among other things. It is a subject among subjects and the turning of it into an object or a thing means death (Slavery and Freedom, 1939, 26).

The objective world is that of the utilitarian. It is an arena of achievement from which we think we can gain happiness. Happiness and utility derive from objectification and the idea of consumption. Nothing unfree can cause anything other than very momentary satisfaction. Society is an “object” in the sense that it is governed by utilitarian considerations and has physical, material elements as part of its purpose. It certainly has a noumenal existence, but it also has an objective one.

Kant opposed the utilitarian model of “chasing happiness” that both societies and individuals pursue. Both Kant and Berdyaev argued against it for almost the same reason. With Kant, it was the good will, while with Berdyaev, it is the free will, defined almost precisely the same at root. Defining happiness as achieving something is irrational, since one doesn't realize how achieving an end will actually be. Such achievements can be used for good or ill. In pursuing something thought to make you happy, you have an image in mind, a fantasy, about what having it will include. It is only rarely accurate. A vision in the mind is one thing, its day to day possession is quite another.